Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs logoLink to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
. 2010 Nov;71(6):895–903. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.895

Perceived Norms for Drinking in the Transition From High School to College and Beyond*

Cynthia A Stappenbeck 1,†, Patrick D Quinn 1, Reagan R Wetherill 1, Kim Fromme 1
PMCID: PMC2965488  PMID: 20946747

Abstract

Objective:

We evaluated selection and socialization processes associated with perceived descriptive norms and drinking from high school through the first 2 years of college.

Method:

Participants (n = 2,247; 61.6% female) completed measures of high school drinking and descriptive drinking norms for their social group and the typical student at the university they were entering, as well as alcohol use and social-group norms through their sophomore year of college. We conducted structural equation models by gender and ethnicity to test high school drinking and drinking norms as predictors of collegiate drinking and social-group norms.

Results:

Perceptions of typical-college-student drinking during high school predicted freshman-year drinking for men but not women and for White but not Asian or Hispanic students. High school social-group norms predicted freshman drinking for White but not Asian or Hispanic students, whereas freshman social-group norms predicted sophomore drinking for all participants.

Conclusions:

Selection and socialization processes co-occur during this transitional time. Heavy drinkers in high school who perceive their friends to be heavy drinkers select into college social groups with perceived heavy drinking. Men and White students who perceive heavy drinking by the typical college student tend to drink heavily in college and choose social groups with perceived heavy drinking. These results support the importance of interventions that are tailored to the individual and that target perceptions of typical-college-student and social-group drinking before entering college for Whites and men but after matriculation for women, Asian, and Hispanic students.

The transition from high school to college marks a period of increased vulnerability for engaging in behavioral risks, including excessive drinking (Fromme et al., 2008; O'Malley and Johnston, 2002). Heavy drinking is associated with a number of deleterious consequences, including academic (Engs et al., 1996; Wechsler et al., 1998), emotional (Frintner and Rubinson, 1993; Muraven et al., 2005), physical (Engs and Aldo-Benson, 1995), social (Engs and Hanson, 1994; Wechsler et al., 1995), and legal (Wechsler et al., 1998) problems. Because of these myriad negative consequences, it is important to gain a better understanding of why the increase in drinking occurs between high school and college (Fromme et al., 2008; O'Malley and Johnston, 2002). Identifying who is at greatest risk for increasing his or her drinking during this transition could provide important information regarding individually tailoring interventions (e.g., personalized normative feedback) to increase their effectiveness.

As students often move away from home for the first time and join new social groups in college, alcohol may be the center of many social functions (e.g., fraternity parties). Through both direct and vicarious experiences, college students form beliefs about normative behaviors in their peer group (Perkins, 2002). These perceptions are categorized as injunctive norms, or the extent to which others approve or disapprove of a given behavior, and descriptive norms, or the perception of what others actually do (Cialdini et al., 1990). Both injunctive and descriptive norms are among the strongest influences on drinking at entry to college (Neighbors et al., 2007b). The present research concerns descriptive drinking norms, or the beliefs students have about the amount of college-student drinking. Research has consistently shown that college students overestimate drinking by their peers (for review, see Borsari and Carey, 2003), which increases their likelihood for heavy drinking (Baer et al., 1991; Neighbors et al., 2007b; Read et al., 2002). Heavier drinking is more likely when the misperception of social-group drinking is greater (Baer et al., 1991; Lewis and Neighbors, 2004), which may be related to individuals' desire to drink in accordance with their peer group (Perkins, 2002).

According to Social Comparison Theory, individuals evaluate themselves through a comparison to others, and the tendency for comparison increases as the observed differences between self and others decrease (Festinger, 1954). Similarly, Social Impact Theory posits that conformity to a group increases as the importance of the group increases (Latane, 1981). In line with these theories, perceptions of drinking for proximal reference groups (e.g., social groups) should be more relevant to the individual's personal drinking than more distal reference groups (e.g., typical college students). Indeed, self-other differences in drinking behavior associated with the perceptions of one's social group were smaller than those associated with the perceptions of typical-college-student drinking (Borsari and Carey, 2003). Moreover, examinations of same-gender reference groups were perceived as more alike with respect to drinking than less familiar groups, including U.S. students (Carey et al., 2006) and gender-nonspecific students (Lewis and Neighbors, 2004). Because an individual's social group is likely to change when beginning college, normative beliefs in high school about the typical college student's drinking may be influential in the peer-selection process during this transition. It is therefore important to examine the influence of perceived drinking norms for one's high school social group, for typical college students, and for new college social groups during the transition from high school to college.

Perceived norms and alcohol use during the transition to college

Whether via popular culture or via older friends or siblings, adolescents can develop beliefs about typical-college-student behavior even before they matriculate. Although it is likely that at least some students develop misperceptions about normative collegiate alcohol use while in high school, few studies have examined the role of perceived norms before college attendance in predicting collegiate drinking (Read et al., 2005; Sher and Rutledge, 2007). Sher and Rutledge (2007) examined the predictive value of a breadth of individual and environmental factors in a sample of college-bound high school seniors in predicting first-semester heavy drinking. They concluded that precollege social-group norms were influential in predicting heavy drinking during the first semester of college, but they did not investigate the influence of typical-college-student descriptive norms, which may be more influential during this transition period when social groups are likely to change.

Another study examined both social-group and typical-student norms in predicting alcohol use during the transition to college and across the freshman and sophomore years (Read et al., 2005). The authors conceptualized the role of perceived norms in terms of reciprocal determinism, a component of Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1969), which proposes that both individual and environmental influences shape behavior over time. Applied to drinking, reciprocal determinism posits that students who are heavier drinkers select into social groups whose members also drink heavily, which in turn influences their subsequent drinking behavior. This reciprocal relationship has been shown among college students such that perceived drinking norms regarding the typical college student predicted subsequent drinking quantity, and drinking quantity predicted later perceived norms (Neighbors et al., 2006). Additionally, support for self-selection into heavy-drinking social groups (e.g., fraternity/sorority organizations) was found during the transition to college. However, affiliation with these heavy-drinking social groups did not predict an increase in peer norms (Park et al., 2009). Read and colleagues (2005) also found some support for reciprocal associations between social-group norms and alcohol use in that social-group norms before entering college predicted freshman- and sophomore-year alcohol use, and alcohol use before entering college predicted social-group norms during sophomore year. Contrary to study hypotheses, however, typical-college-student drinking norms measured before matriculation predicted neither alcohol use nor social-group drinking norms in college (Read et al., 2005).

Although Read and colleagues' (2005) lack of significant findings for typical-college-student norms may be attributed to the fact that perceived norms for more proximal peers are more relevant to the individual even as he or she transitions to college, further exploration of possible associations is warranted. One possible explanation is that the socialization effect of typical-student-drinking norms is influenced by individual differences. Other reciprocal models of alcohol use have been shown to differ as a function of both gender and ethnicity (e.g., Chassin et al., 1993; Farrell, 1994). In the analyses conducted by Read and colleagues (2005), gender was treated as a covariate, and potential gender and ethnic differences in the predictive strength of typical-college-student norms were not tested. Differences between men and women have been noted with regard to the role of perceived norms, with several studies suggesting that perceived norms more strongly influence the drinking behavior of men than of women (LaBrie et al., 2008; Neighbors et al., 2007a; Read et al., 2002). Read and colleagues' (2005) investigation of perceived norms was also limited in that they were unable to examine ethnic differences because of their largely White sample. Peer influences have been related to drinking for Hispanic and Black adolescents (Epstein et al., 1999), and Whites reported higher levels of perceived norms of friends' drinking than Asians, although these differences in norms were not significantly associated with alcohol use (Keefe and Newcomb, 1996). In a cross-sectional investigation, social-group norms were found to be a stronger predictor of alcohol use for White college students than for Hispanics (Corbin et al., 2008b).

The longitudinal effects of perceived norms on alcohol use among different ethnic groups have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, a more direct examination of both gender and ethnic differences in the relationship between precollege perceived norms and collegiate alcohol use was needed.

Present study

In the current longitudinal study, we tested the effects of individual differences on a selection and socialization model of perceived norms and alcohol use in the transition from high school to college and through sophomore year. Specifically, we assessed whether heavier drinking students select into heavy-drinking environments (e.g., social groups), whether a socialization process takes place whereby students' perceptions of drinking influence their own behavior, or whether these processes occur simultaneously in the transition to college. Moreover, we were interested in examining whether these processes differed for men and women or among ethnic groups. We hypothesized that both selection and socialization processes would occur in that heavy-drinking men and women would select into heavier drinking social groups in college and, in turn, would increase their drinking. In addition, men and women who perceived their social group as heavier drinkers would be socialized to heavier drinking. We also anticipated that greater perceived typical-college-student norms would predict heavier drinking in college, but that this effect would be stronger among men, based on previous findings (LaBrie et al., 2008; Neighbors et al., 2007a; Read et al., 2002). Based on the initial cross-sectional findings of Corbin and colleagues (2008b), we hypothesized that Whites would be heavier drinkers and that social-group and typical-college-student norms would be more predictive of alcohol use among Whites than among other ethnic groups.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were members of the 2004 entering class of a large, public, southwestern university who participated in a longitudinal study of alcohol use and other behavioral risks during and beyond the transition from high school to college. Unmarried students between the ages of 17 and 19 who had not previously attended college (n = 6,391) were invited to participate during their freshman orientation in the summer before college matriculation. Of the invited students, 76% (n = 4,832) expressed interest in the study. Of those interested students, 3,046 were then randomly assigned to complete a high school survey and subsequent semi-annual assessments throughout college. The remaining interested students were assigned to complete the high school and Year 4 assessment (n = 976) or the Year 4 survey assessment only (n = 810) and were not included in the current analyses. Eligible students were given access to a secure Web server, on which they provided informed consent and completed the high school survey. This survey assessed behaviors and normative influences during the spring semester of their senior year of high school (n = 2,247, 74% of the randomized sample). The present study is based on this final sample, which was de-mographically similar to the undergraduate population from which it was drawn (Mage =18.41 years, SD = 0.35; 60% female; 54% White, 18% Asian, 15% Hispanic or Latino, 4% Black, and 7% multi-ethnic/other). For a more detailed description of participant recruitment and other procedures, see Corbin et al. (2008b), and Hatzenbuehler et al. (2008).

Following the high school survey, participants completed Web-based surveys 3 weeks before the end of each college semester assessing behaviors for the preceding 3 months. Survey responses were collected and stored by DatStat (Seattle, WA). Participants received $30 for completion of the high school survey and $25 for the spring surveys. The high school and college freshman and sophomore spring surveys included measures of social-group descriptive norms for alcohol use, whereas the fall-semester surveys did not. The current study therefore includes data from the high school survey and the college freshman and sophomore spring surveys. Of the 2,247 participants randomized to the sample of interest who completed the high school survey, 90% (n = 2,025; 62% female) completed the freshman spring survey, and 80% (n = 1,790; 63% female) completed the sophomore spring survey.

Measures

Demographics.

In the high school survey, participants reported demographic information, including gender and ethnicity.

Alcohol use.

In all three surveys, we assessed total drinks per week using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ), a widely used measure of alcohol consumption (Collins et al., 1985). Participants indicated the number of standard drinks (defined as 12 oz. of beer, 5 oz. of wine, or one shot of distilled spirits straight or in a mixed drink) that they consumed on each day of a typical week. From responses to the DDQ, we calculated the total number of drinks per week. The DDQ has demonstrated adequate internal consistency in recent research (α = .79; Corbin et al., 2008a).

Descriptive norms.

In all three surveys, participants' social-group descriptive norms were assessed using a modified version of the Drinking Norms Rating Form (DNRF; Baer et al., 1991). Similar to the DDQ, this version of the DNRF asks participants to separately estimate the number of standard drinks male and female members of their social group (i.e., "the principal group of friends with whom you interacted and spent time") consumed on each day of a typical week during the past 3 months. We computed same-gender estimates of social-group members' alcohol consumption by summing estimates for each day of the week (e.g., for women, analyses include descriptive norms for female social-group members only; Lewis and Neighbors, 2004).

Descriptive norms for the typical college student at this university were assessed only in the high school survey, again using the DNRF. Participants estimated the number of drinks male and female students consumed on each day of a typical week. We again estimated perceptions of male and female college students' alcohol use by summing estimates for each day of the week. Following Read and colleagues (2005), we used same-gender-specific typical-student norms in our analyses. In addition to demonstrating moderate associations with alcohol consumption, gender-specific versions of the DNRF also have demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = .80; Lewis and Neighbors, 2004).

Data analysis

We tested our primary study hypotheses using multigroup path analysis in Mplus Version 5 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2007). We modeled relations among alcohol use, social-group norms, and typical-college-student norms across the three assessment points (i.e., high school, freshman spring, and sophomore spring). To test the hypothesis that selection and socialization effects would differ across gender and ethnicity, we first tested models in which all paths were constrained to be equal across the entire sample. Next, we examined two fully unconstrained models in which paths were free to vary across either gender or ethnicity. We compared the fit of the unconstrained models relative to the fully constrained model using a chi-square test of difference. We compared only the fully constrained and fully unconstrained models to reduce the risk of a Type 1 error (Green et al., 1998). Because large sample sizes often result in erroneously significant chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, we also assessed overall model fit with several additional indices (Byrne, 2001; Kline, 2005). We used the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Values greater than .95 for the TLI and CFI, less than .10 for the RMSEA, and less than .05 for the SRMR are indicative of good model fit (Kline, 2005).

Multigroup path analyses require a minimum sample size of n = 10 per indicator variable (Kline, 2005). In ethnicity models, we were therefore able to test for invariance across Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and White ethnicities but excluded Black and multi-ethnic/other ethnicities from all analyses because of inadequate sample sizes. As a result, the final sample for the ethnicity models was n = 1,959.

All drinking variables (i.e., alcohol use, social-group norms, and typical-college-student norms) at all time points were positively skewed (i.e., skewness ≥ 2) and had a large number of zero values (i.e., kurtosis ≥ 10). The cut scores used to determine elevated skewness and kurtosis were based on a moderately nonnormal distribution and assume normal skewness = 0 and kurtosis = 3 (Curran et al., 1996). After adding 0.1 and log-transforming the drinking variables before conducting the path analyses, all variables had skewness and kurtosis values below the cut scores (i.e., were within the normal range). Fourteen percent of participants (n = 320) were missing data for one survey assessment, and 8.0% of participants (n = 179) were missing for two survey assessments. Path analysis, however, permits the handling of nonsystematic missing data with maximum likelihood estimation based on all available data (Kline, 2005).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for alcohol use, social-group descriptive norms, and typical-college-student descriptive norms by gender and ethnicity. Men and women differed significantly on all variables (all ps < .05), with men reporting greater alcohol use and perceived norms than women. Compared with White students, Asians reported significantly lower alcohol use and significantly lower social-group alcohol use at all assessments (all ps < .001). Asian and White students, however, did not differ on their estimates of typical-college-student drinking. Hispanic students reported significantly heavier social-group drinking in high school than did Whites, t(1,550) = 3.58, p < .001. Alcohol use, social-group drinking norms, and typical-college-student drinking norms were significantly positively correlated across all assessments (see Table 2). Relations between variables examined by gender and ethnicity remained significantly positively correlated, with a few exceptions: associations between typical-college-student norms and both sophomore drinking and social-group norms for Asian students, and typical-college-student norms and sophomore drinking for Hispanic students were nonsignificant. In addition, high school participants significantly overestimated typical-college-student drinking relative to the level of alcohol use reported by these students during the freshman and sophomore assessments (all ps < .001).

Table 1.

Means (and standard deviations) for alcohol use, social-group norms, and typical-college-student drinking by gender and ethnicity

Gender
 Ethnicity
Variable Women (n = 1,345) Men (n = 902) White (n = 1,211) Asian (n = 406) Hispanic (n = 902)
Total drinks per week
 High school 2.61 (4.99) 3.49 (6.92) 3.52 (6.32) 1.26(4.09) 3.46 (5.88)
 Freshman 4.82 (7.33) 6.72(10.43) 6.87 (9.61) 2.90(5.88) 5.12(7.65)
 Sophomore 4.56(7.18) 6.56(10.33) 6.46 (9.42) 2.72 (5.40) 5.54 (8.62)
Social-group descriptive normsa
 High school 5.78 (8.65) 7.57(10.08) 7.03 (9.95) 4.21 (8.46) 8.15(8.60)
 Freshman 7.98 (8.52) 11.90(14.79) 10.99(11.85) 5.62 (7.89) 9.41 (13.49)
 Sophomore 7.97 (9.29) 11.43(13.36) 10.78(11.38) 6.03(11.45) 9.63 (10.09)
Typical-college-student descriptive normsa 14.31 (11.73) 19.52(15.10) 16.16(11.47) 17.33(19.31) 17.31 (13.51)
Open in a new tab
a

Social-group and typical-college-student descriptive norms represent the participants' estimated total drinks per typical week for those groups of people and are assessed in a similar manner to the participants' own typical drinks per week.

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations for alcohol use and social-group and typical-college-student descriptive drinking norms

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Total drinks per week
 1. High school -
 2. Freshman .59* -
 3. Sophomore .52* .69* -
Social-group descriptive norms
 4. High school .59* .41* .37* -
 5. Freshman .49* .69* .59* .41* -
 6. Sophomore .42* .59* .73* .37* .60*\ -
 7. Typical-college-student descriptive normsa .32* .22* .17* .36* .25* .19*
Open in a new tab
a

Typical-college-student descriptive norms were assessed in the high school survey only.

*

p < .001.

Multigroup path analyses

A selection and socialization model was tested to determine the role of perceived descriptive norms in predicting college drinking and social-group selection. The model included stability paths from high school drinking to freshman drinking and from freshman drinking to sophomore drinking. Also included in the model were paths hypothesized to represent selection, including paths from high school alcohol use to freshman social-group norms, from high school social-group norms to freshman social-group norms, from typical-college-student norms to freshman social-group norms, and from freshman alcohol use to sophomore social-group norms. Socialization was represented in the model through paths from both typical-college-student norms (assessed during high school) and high school social-group norms to freshman alcohol use and from freshmen social-group norms to sophomore alcohol use.

Gender.

The fully constrained model for gender fit the data well, χ2(22) = 94.13,p < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .05 (90% CI [.043, .065]), SRMR = .04, and all paths in the model were significant (all ps < .01). An exami-nation of the fully unconstrained model suggested that it also fit the data well, χ2(12) = 64.19,p < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI [.048, .078]), SRMR = .03. Chi-square difference tests indicated that the fully unconstrained model fit the data better than did the fully constrained model, Δχ2(10) = 29.94,p < .001. Thus, the model in which the paths for men and women were allowed to vary was the better model (see Figure 1). Gender differences emerged in the unconstrained model, with the path from typical-college-student norms to freshman alcohol use significant for men but not for women. Thus typical-college-student norms may influence alcohol use during freshman year for men but not for women.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Gender models: Values are standardized path coefficients for females/males **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Ethnicity.

The fully constrained model for ethnicity fit the data well, χ2(38) = 135.17,p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI [.051, .074]), SRMR = .06, with all paths significant (all ps < .01). The fully unconstrained model also fit the data well, χ2(18) = 94.94,p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI [.065, .097]), SRMR = .03, with differences observed among ethnic groups. Chi-square difference tests again showed that the fully unconstrained model fit the data better than did the fully constrained model, Δχ2(20) = 40.23, p < .01. Thus, the model in which the paths were allowed to vary among ethnic groups was the better fitting model. All paths were significant for the White model (all ps < .01). For Asians and Hispanics, the paths from typical-college-student and high school social-group norms to freshman alcohol use were not significant. That is, typical-college-student and high school social-group norms may influence alcohol use in the freshman year of college for White but not for Asian or Hispanic students. Additionally, for Asian students the path from typical-college-student norms to freshman social-group norms was not significant (Figure 2). Thus, Asian students' perceptions of the typical college student's drinking were not predictive of their perceptions of their social group's drinking during the freshman year.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Ethnicity models: Values are standardized path coefficients for Whites/Asians/Hispanics *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current research examined the effects of individual differences in ethnicity and gender on a selection and socialization model of perceived norms and alcohol use during the transition from high school to college through sophomore year. Findings suggest that socialization and selection processes co-occur during the transition and adjustment to college. In this sample, the effects of both alcohol use and social-group descriptive norms were longitudinally linked to subsequent alcohol use and social-group norms. That is, students who drank heavily in high school and perceived that their friends drank heavily in high school selected into and remained in college social groups that were perceived to drink heavily. Furthermore, students in heavier drinking high school social groups increased their drinking to a greater extent. These findings are consistent with earlier research that posited reciprocal alcohol use-social influence associations during the transition from high school to college (Capone et al., 2007; Read et al., 2005). This research also underscores the importance of social norms in emerging adult alcohol consumption and provides additional evidence that perceived norms for alcohol exist before college matriculation (Read et al., 2002).

Moreover, the current findings extend previous research on selection and socialization processes during the transition from high school to college by examining gender and ethnic differences in perceived norms and alcohol use in a longitudinal sample. Specifically, high school males' perceptions of typical male college-student alcohol use predicted, and therefore appear to influence, their freshman alcohol use and their selection of freshman social groups. Conversely, typical-college-student norms predicted women's selection of freshman social groups but were not associated with their freshman alcohol use. Thus, it appears that male students who believe that the typical male college student drinks heavily tend to drink more heavily in college, whereas female students do not. These results support the influence of both selection and socialization during the transition to college. Specifically, men may be more influenced by processes of socialization during the transition to college than women, and therefore men may drink heavily because of their (mis) perception of the amount of alcohol the typical male college student consumes. Selection processes, on the other hand, may be important for both men and women as they leave their high school social groups and select into new college social groups.

Within our ethnically diverse sample, we found that selection and socialization effects in the transition to college differed as a function of ethnicity. Specifically, White students who believed that members of their social group in high school and typical college students drank heavily tended to drink more heavily in college, whereas Asian and Hispanic students did not. Additionally, White and Hispanic students tended to select into social groups that matched their previously held beliefs about the typical college student's alcohol use, whereas Asian students did not. To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to compare the effects of precollege perceived norms on collegiate alcohol use among different ethnic groups. These findings build on previous work that suggests that alcohol-use norms are a better predictor of drinking among Whites than among Asians or Hispanics (Corbin et al., 2008b; Epstein et al., 1999; Keefe and Newcomb, 1996).

Whereas the present research cannot answer the question of why typical-college-student descriptive norms have less influence over the drinking behavior of Asian and Hispanic students, this finding may result from differing levels of identification with "typical" college students. Asian and Hispanic adolescents may not view the drinking behavior of typical college students—who may be perceived as being White, reflecting college-student demographics—as relevant to their collegiate experience. Additionally, these ethnic differences in the influence of descriptive norms suggest that studies examining normative feedback as an intervention for alcohol use among college students without considering the moderating influence of ethnicity may be overestimating the effects of these interventions for Asians and Hispanics. Conversely, the same studies may in fact be underestimating the effects of interventions on White students. These data suggest that future intervention studies targeting normative misperceptions should examine ethnic differences in responses to feedback.

It is noteworthy that freshman social-group norms predicted sophomore alcohol use for all ethnic groups, whereas high school social-group norms predicted freshman alcohol use only for White students. This finding appears to reflect a greater influence of peers in college than in high school for Asian and Hispanic students. This difference may not be surprising, given cultural differences in familial influences on drinking behaviors between Asian and Hispanic students in comparison with White students. Although not examined in the current study, both Asian and Hispanic students are more likely to have cultural or personal values that emphasize the importance of family, compared with White students (Corbin et al., 2008b; Iwamoto et al., in press). After the transition to college, peer influence becomes more important than parents' influence in predicting students' alcohol use (Wetherill and Fromme, 2007), perhaps diminishing the relative influence of familial and cultural influences among Asian and Hispanic students.

The results of the current investigation provide important implications for interventions. Our findings support efforts to provide prevention and intervention programs tailored to the individual, both before and immediately after matriculation. With personalized normative feedback, individuals receive information regarding students' perceptions of college-student drinking and actual college-student drinking, as well as information regarding their own beliefs and alcohol use. Through this process, the exaggerated, misperceived norm may be replaced with accurate norms and may subsequently alter the individual's perceptions and alcohol use. Based on current findings, targeting White male students before college matriculation with normative feedback regarding "typical-college-student drinking" may be particularly important, as misperceptions regarding collegiate drinking appear to be particularly strong influences on their social-group selection and college alcohol use. As for female, Asian, and Hispanic students, intervention efforts should target misperceptions of the alcohol consumption of social-group members, rather than of the typical college student, especially after matriculation to college.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the current findings. First, the sample was recruited from a single public university and is comprised of those who agreed to participate. Although the sample is more heterogeneous compared with previous studies, it contained too few Black and multi-ethnic students to include these groups in analyses. Furthermore, whereas the validity of our findings is strengthened by the longitudinal design, we did not examine the effects of selection and socialization throughout college. Future research should examine the influence of perceived norms on alcohol use from high school throughout college and into postcollege years. The current findings also are limited to the assessment of descriptive norms and cannot address the influence of injunctive norms on the selection and socialization processes that may have occurred throughout the assessment period.

Finally, our primary focus was on perceived norms and alcohol use, but it is important to note that many additional environmental and biological factors, such as joining a fraternity/sorority organization or a family history of alcoholism, may influence social groups and alcohol use. In fact, Park and colleagues (2009) found that precollege alcohol use influences selection into college living environments (e.g., residence halls, fraternity houses), and that these environments and precollege drinking were associated with socialization in drinking behaviors.

Despite these limitations, the current research offers a unique examination of gender and ethnicity in socialization and selection processes during the transition from high school through the sophomore year of college. The majority of studies on socialization and selection have been limited by sample demographic characteristics, thus prohibiting the examination of gender and ethnic differences. Data presented here may help guide intervention programs and suggest potential targets and content for such programs. Future studies examining a more extensive longitudinal course of individual differences, social influences, and alcohol use may help us better understand collegiate drinking and develop more effective interventions for both high school and college students.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Nicole Fossos for her work on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Footnotes

*

The preparation of this article was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grants R01-AA013967, F31-AA017563, and F31-AA015250 and the Waggoner Center for Alcohol and Addiction Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

References

  1. Baer JS, Stacy A, Larimer M. Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1991;52:580–586. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1991.52.580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A. Social learning of moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1969;11:275–279. doi: 10.1037/h0026998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borsari B, Carey KB. Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2003;64:331–341. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  5. Capone C, Wood MD, Borsari B, Laird RD. Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: A prospective examination. Psychology of Addictive Behavior. 2007;21:316–327. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carey KB, Borsari B, Carey MP, Maisto SA. Patterns and importance of self-other differences in college drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:385–393. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.4.385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chassin L, Pillow DR, Curran PJ, Molina BSG, Barrera MJR. Relation of parental alcoholism to early adolescent substance use: A test of three mediating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1993;102:3–19. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.102.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990;58:1015–1026. [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1985;53:189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Corbin WR, Morean ME, Benedict D. The Positive Drinking Consequences Questionnaire (PDCQ): Validation of a new assessment tool. Addictive Behaviors. 2008a;33:54–68. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Corbin WR, Vaughan EL, Fromme K. Ethnic differences and the closing of the sex gap in alcohol use among college-bound students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008b;22:240–248. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.2.240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 1996;1:16–29. [Google Scholar]
  13. Engs RC, Aldo-Benson M. The association of alcohol consumption with self-reported illness in university students. Psychological Reports. 1995;76:727–736. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Engs RC, Diebold BA, Hanson DJ. The drinking patterns and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 1996;41(3):13–33. [Google Scholar]
  15. Engs RC, Hanson DJ. The Student Alcohol Questionnaire: An updated reliability of the drinking patterns, problems, knowledge, and attitude subscales. Psychological Reports. 1994;74:12–14. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Epstein JA, Botvin GJ, Baker E, Diaz T. Impact of social influences and problem behavior on alcohol use among inner-city Hispanic and black adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1999;60:595–604. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1999.60.595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Farrell AD. Structural equation modeling with longitudinal data: Strategies for examining group differences and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1994;62:477–487. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.3.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7:117–140. [Google Scholar]
  19. Frintner MP, Rubinson L. Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 1993;19:272–284. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fromme K, Corbin WR, Kruse MI. Behavioral risks during the transition from high school to college. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:1497–1504. doi: 10.1037/a0012614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Green SB, Thompson MS, Babyak MA. A Monte Carlo investigation of methods for controlling Type 1 errors with specification searches in structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1998;33:365–383. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3303_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hatzenbuehler ML, Corbin WR, Fromme K. Trajectories and determinants of alcohol use among LGB young adults and their heterosexual peers: Results from a prospective study. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:81–90. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Iwamoto DK, Corbin WR, Fromme K. Trajectory classes of heavy episodic drinking among Asian American college students. Addiction. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03019.x. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Keefe K, Newcomb MD. Demographic and psychosocial risk for alcohol use: Ethnic differences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1996;57:521–530. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Neighbors C. Self-consciousness moderates the relationship between perceived norms and drinking in college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33:1529–1539. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Latane B. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist. 1981;36:343–356. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2004;18:334–339. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.4.334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Muraven M, Collins RL, Morsheimer ET, Shiffman S, Paty JA. One too many: Predicting future alcohol consumption following heavy drinking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2005;13:127–136. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.13.2.127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide (version 5) Los Angeles, CA: Author; 1998-2007. [Google Scholar]
  31. Neighbors C, Dillard AJ, Lewis MA, Bergstrom RL, Neil TA. Normative misperceptions and temporal precedence of perceived norms and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:290–299. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Neighbors C, Fossos N, Woods BA, Fabiano P, Sledge M, Frost D. Social anxiety as a moderator of the relationship between perceived norms and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007a;68:91–96. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007b;68:556–565. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. O'Malley PM, Johnston LD. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement. 2002;14:23–39. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Park A, Sher KJ, Wood PK, Krull JL. Dual mechanisms underlying accentuation of risky drinking via fraternity/sorority affiliation: The role of personality, peer norms, and alcohol availability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009;118:241–255. doi: 10.1037/a0015126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Perkins HW. Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement. 2002;14:164–172. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Read JP, Wood MD, Capone C. A prospective investigation of relations between social influences and alcohol involvement during the transition into college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:23–34. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Read JP, Wood MD, Davidoff OJ, McLacken J, Campbell JF. Making the transition from high school to college: The role of alcohol-related social influence factors in students' drinking. Substance Abuse. 2002;23:53–65. doi: 10.1080/08897070209511474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sher KJ, Rutledge PC. Heavy drinking across the transition to college: Predicting first-semester heavy drinking from precollege variables. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:819–835. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wechsler H, Dowdall GW, Maenner G, Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H. Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997. Journal of American College Health. 1998;47:57–68. doi: 10.1080/07448489809595621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wechsler H, Moeykens B, Davenport A, Castillo S, Hansen J. The adverse impact of heavy episodic drinkers on other college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1995;56:628–634. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wetherill RR, Fromme K. Perceived awareness and caring influences alcohol use by high school and college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2007;21:147–154. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are provided here courtesy of Rutgers University. Center of Alcohol Studies

RESOURCES